Sense of Humor in Romantic Relationships and Friendships
This present investigation examined the degree to which humor, among various characteristics, is desired in two types of relational partners. We expected to find that humor would be perceived as
more desirable (or necessary) for a romantic relationship than friendship. We also tested whether there were significant gender differences in assessing humor in these two types of relational partners. Additionally, we attempted to assess whether a lower discrepancy between the scores of the ideal and actual partner regarding sense of humor in romantic relationships, indicates a higher dyadic adjustment. The participants (n=120) indicated their preferences for various attributes (among which was sense of humor), in either an ideal partner, actual partner or best friend on a Five-point Likert-type scale. In order to assess dyadic adjustment, the participants filled in the revised Dyadic Adjustment Form . Sense of humor was rated as a significantly more important (necessary) characteristic in romantic relationships than friendships. As regards to gender differences, no significant differences were found for sense of humor, and the discrepancy of assessment sense of humor in both cases (ideal partner vs actual partner) did not significantly correlate with global dyadic adjustment or with any of its dimensions. The results suggest that a sense of humor is a characteristic acknowledged as important across relationship types, and more in-depth investigations should be advanced.
 Buss D., & Barnes M. Preferences in human mate selection. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 (50). pp. 559-570
 Goodwin R. Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles. 1990. 23(9/10). pp. 501-513
 Fraley B., & Arthur A. The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Pers Relatsh. 2004. 11(1). pp. 61-78
 Sprecher S., Regan P. Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. J Soc Pers Relat. 2002. 19(4). pp. 463-481
 Geary D., Jacob V., & Byrd-Craven J. Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research. J Sex Res. 2004. 41(1). pp. 27-42
 Li N. P., Bailey J. M., Kenrick D.T., & Linsenmeier J. A. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002. 82(6). pp. 947-955
 Buss D. The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 (54). pp. 616-628
 Feingold A. Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112: pp. 125-139
 Bressler R., & Balshine S. The influence of humor on desirability. Evol Hum Behav. 2004 (27) pp. 29-39
 Bressler R., Martin R., & Balshine S. Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evol Hum Behav 27. pp. 121-130
 Greengross G., & Miller G. Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evol Psychol. 2006. 6(3). pp. 393-408
 Li N. P., & Kenrick D. T. Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006. 90(3). pp. 468-489
 Rusu A. S., & Bencic A. Choosing a mate in Romania: A cognitive evolutionary psychological investigation of personal advertisements market. J Cogn Behav Psychother. 2007. 7(1). pp. 27-43
 Fletcher G. J. O., Simpson J., Thomas G., & Giles L. Ideals in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999. 76(1). pp. 72-89
 Zentner M. Ideal mate personality concepts and compatibility in close relationships: a longitudinal analysis. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 2005. 89(2). pp. 242-256
 Murray S, Holmes J, & Griffin D. The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996. 70. pp. 79-98
 Fletcher GJO, Simpson J, & Thomas G. Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 79(6): pp. 933- 940.
 Higgins E. T. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychol Rev. 1987; 94 (3): pp. 319-340
 Simpson J, Gangestad S. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers. 1992. 60(1). pp. 31-51
 Regan P. What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1998. 24 (12) pp. 1294-1303
 Simpson J, Fletcher G. J. O., Campbell L. The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2001. pp. 86-106
 Campbell K, Baumeister R. Is loving the self necessary for loving another? An examination of identity and intimacy. In Fletcher GJO, Clark MS (eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2001
 Furman W, Simon V. A., Shaffer L., Bouchey & H. A. Adolescents’ working models and styles of relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Dev. 2002. 73(1). pp. 241-255
 Carver K, Joyner K, & Udry R. National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim P (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior. 2003. pp. 23-56
 Dekay T, Buss D, & Stone V. Coalitions, mates, and friends: Toward an evolutionary psychology of relationship preferences. Unpublished manuscript: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1998
 Vigil J. Asymmetries in the Friendship Preferences and Social Styles of Men and Women. Hum Nat. 2007. 18(2). pp. 143-161
 Sherman LW. Humor and social distance in elementary school children. Humor. 1988; 1(4). pp. 389-404
 Buote V, Pancer M, Pratt M, Adams G, Birnie-Lefcovitch S, Polivy J, & Wintre MG. The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university students. J Adolesc Res. 2007; 22(6). pp. 665-689
 Grief G.L. Male friendships: implications from research for family therapy. The Journal of the California Graduate School of Family Psychology. 2006. 33(1). pp. 1-15
 Hatfield E, & Sprecher S. Men’s and women’s preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1995. 26(6). pp. 728-750
 Regan P. Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and sex. J Psychol Human Sex. 1998; 10(1). pp. 53-73
 Buss D. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989. 12(1). pp. 1-14
 Buss D. The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books. 1994
 Buss D. Human mate selection. Am Sci. 1985. 73(1). pp. 47-51
Copyright (c) 2018 LUMEN Proceedings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.